RAMESH GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(4), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and are deciding the case on merit. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the ‘AR’), placing emphasis on the fact that the AO has not have valid jurisdiction over the appellant/assessee as the appellant/assessee had never filed any ITR with Delhi address. Even the PAN was not allotted with Delhi address. Hence

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. 7. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (‘Sr. DR’). With the help of facts mentioned in orders of the Authorities below

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

condone the delay in the interest of justice. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in business to develop, establish, construct and maintain a project relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the New Mangalore Port Road connectivity project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (‘BOT’), filed its Income Tax Return

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 to 4 are hereby dismissed. Therefore, required no separate adjudication. 8. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) prayed for condonation of delay of 379 days in filing this appeal. He submitted that the earlier Ld. Counsel looking after the tax matter of the assessee got critically ill, hence

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires.” 12. The findings of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon’ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

DAYALU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DEVESH CINEMAS,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DAYALU IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

251(1) of the Act by invoking Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

BHASIN MOTORS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

condonation of delay rather assessee has filed that\nthere is no sufficient cause of delay.\n5.\nThat the notice u/s 251(2) and enhancement made by CIT(A) are\nillegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.\n6.\nThat the CIT(A) did not consider submission on record and acted\nagainst the principal of natural justice.\n7.\nWithout prejudice

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY ,GREATER NOIDA vs. CIT-A-I, U.P

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per ground number three raised before us

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Akash Education Society, Vs Cit(A)-I, R.V. Northland Institute, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. V & Po:- Chittehra, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Pan-Aabta3590J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hifzul Hasnain, Ar Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 7. Ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, agreed to the submissions of the Ld.AR of the assessee that similar issue in the assessee’s own appeals in ITA Nos. 6391 & 6392/Del/2017 for the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 have been decided by the ITAT, “F” Bench, Delhi vide order

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

251, Street No.2, Delhi. Chhelera Village Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 201303 PAN: AYNPS1048K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Department represented by Date of hearing 17.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 30 .05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned

BHASIN MOTORS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -(4)2, NEW DELHI

condonation of delay rather assessee has filed that\nthere is no sufficient cause of delay.\n5.\nThat the notice u/s 251(2) and enhancement made by CIT(A) are\nillegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.\n6.\nThat the CIT(A) did not consider submission on record and acted\nagainst the principal of natural justice.\n7.\nWithout prejudice

JAYPEE INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 and 2 are in respect of dismissal of appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reasoning that the said appeal was filed after specified time and there was no request to condone the said delay. However, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had filed a detailed reply [page

PEOPLE CARE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

RIVEN HEALTH CLUB PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account